Slide 2

The purpose of the lesson

Analysis of the chapter “Princess Mary” Comparison of the actions and characters of the heroes of this story with the character of Pechorin Training monologue speech and elements of analysis of the writer's style

Slide 3

Vocabulary work

Plot self-sufficiency Climax Philosophical issues Symbolic meaning of the image

Slide 4

Questions for the conversation

The story "Princess Mary" is perceived as main story in the novel. Why do you think? Conclusion: the story is characterized by plot self-sufficiency (how do you understand this expression?); this is the culmination of Pechorin's diary; it contains most discussions about the soul and fate; In the chapter, the philosophical content of the novel receives the most detailed development.

Slide 5

Group work

1. The initial impetus for all events is given by the relationship between Pechorin and Grushnitsky. Analyze the history of their friendship and enmity. Compare this with the situation “Onegin - Lensky” and with Pushkin’s discussion of friendship in the second chapter of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

Slide 6

2. Analyze the history of the relationship between Pechorin and Princess Mary. For comparison, in “Fatalist,” pay attention to the episode with the policeman’s daughter Nastya as an example of Pechorin’s usual indifference to women.

Slide 7

3. How and why does the relationship between Pechorin and Vera develop? What does the tragic scene of the chase for Vera indicate (compare it with the chase scene in the story “Bela”, paying attention to symbolic meaning image of a horse in both cases).

Slide 8

4. Analyze the relationship between Pechorin and Dr. Werner. How did Pechorin’s relationship with the “water society” develop? Why?

Slide 9

5. Compare the endings of “Princess Mary” and “Taman” (read the fragments of the endings expressively). Conclusion: given the generality of the topic - “ seascape" - there is a significant difference: in "Taman" this is a real landscape, and in "Princess Mary" it is an imaginary, romantic emblem inner world Pechorina.

M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “Hero of Our Time” was in highest degree unexpected and interesting phenomenon. The first who paid attention to him was I. S. Turgenev. He wrote: “What a delight! There was nothing like this in our literature. Of course, this is an imitation of the French, but it’s still wonderful!” Over the course of a number of years (40-90s of the 19th century), the work has attracted writers, readers, and critics in various aspects.

Before us is a novel with a very well-thought-out composition, a familiar plot and an chronological narrative. Acquaintance with Pechorin is unexpected and varied for the reader. Either he is an officer in the service of Maxim Maksimych, his good colleague, neighbor and comrade; then he is an aristocrat who has lost interest in an old, unofficial friend; then he is a man who plays with the fate of others: everyone is bored, and so is he. But all this is event material on which the main content of the novel grows - what Pechorin talks about in his thoughts. Why was he born? What is it created for? After all, there was some big idea, the destiny that befell him? Was he not destined to achieve it? Or did it not fall to him?

Reality is the secular circle in which Pechorin is placed, where his life, upbringing, living conditions flow through the force of circumstances - this is the whole image of the aristocratic world. The doctor, as a rule, is a foreigner, heavily Russified, who has become a Russian without noble relatives or capital; This smart Stolz is present in many Russian novels as a constant character in Russian life: smart, honest, noble by nature, but financially dependent. " Water Society"- a mixture of aristocracy and the Russian province; illnesses and ailments do not depend on belonging to the class, which is why everyone is drawn to this blessed land - the earthly paradise. This is the society in which Pechorin finds himself and where he takes pleasure in dominating. And in vain he flirts when he asks why they, those around him, don’t like him so much. The answer to this is simple: he always makes people feel the difference between himself and them - in interests, in life needs, in clothing. And here for Pechorin there is a huge field of activity: there are a lot of objects and phenomena worthy of satire and parody. His malice can be satisfied. Here the whole simple intrigue of the novel is revealed.

The most remarkable thing is that Lermontov managed to put a lot of human content into a simple story. The external holiday novel turned out to be the first Russian psychological novel, in which the whole gamut of human feelings, where the author forces Pechorin to expose himself and encourages the reader to show sympathy for him, not only to call him an egoist, but to feel sorry for him. Feel sorry as a human being.

Pechorin understands well that his love did not bring happiness to anyone, including him. But he loved because it was a need of the body that he satisfied. Pechorin, consciously or unconsciously, is an adept of egoism (he “only wants freedom for himself”). Hence his judgment, full of indifferent cynicism, about the immense pleasure “in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul”: “She is like a flower” that “must be picked”<...>and, having breathed your fill, throw it on the road: maybe someone will pick it up!” This is almost his entire morality, philosophy of happiness.

And this is said by a military officer, a noble man, a philosopher! Knight! But the story just leads to the idea that he has no happiness. Flirting with Princess Mary - to annoy Grushnitsky. Grushnitsky wants Pechorin to be his friend - it’s so impressive! But this makes Pechorin laugh, and he, in essence, mocks Grushnitsky, who takes everything seriously. Grushnitsky does not notice Mary’s condescension to his courtship, persistent and therefore annoying, but Pechorin noticed long ago and, as they now say, drew conclusions... Why all this? What's the goal? You can answer with vulgarity: to spend time without boredom.

But the author gives a difficult psychological drawing hero with such care that the reader involuntarily asks: is his behavior a characteristic of the character of an aristocrat who does not understand life, or is it a consequence of the barracks of Nicholas's despotism, or is it an innate human trait? The author must answer this question.

We gave Pechorin credit for his disdain for aristocracy, almost disgust. And this is quite natural: he is a military officer, although the author never shows him in military affairs. But his behavior, bold, self-confident, almost to the point of despair, testifies to the yeast of war (“hussar bone”). The contrast between Pechorin and the environment is very characteristic: he does not conflict with the environment, but he himself is part of it, but an independent part.

The despotism of the barracks did not make a slave out of him. Willpower overcomes any prejudice or wariness. The fight with a drunken Cossack indicates the unbridled courage of our hero (“The officers congratulated me - and definitely, there was something!”).

What is common between this man, who risks his life for pleasure, and the man who thinks that he should pick a flower, inhale it and quit? And here before us is at the same time an image that is heroic, beautiful in spirit and vulgar, insignificant. Just think, what a victory over a girl just starting out in life! And Lermontov wants to present this vulgarity, not romanticism, not the “attractiveness of evil” (because there is no evil here) as a spring of activity, and this is precisely vulgarity, no matter what it is put into. Therefore, this part of the story evokes sarcasm in the reader towards the hero.

At the very beginning, it was no coincidence that I mentioned the name of I. S. Turgenev, an author who can be called a monopolist in the depiction of first love. In “A Hero of Our Time” there is an anticipation of what will happen in many of his works. Lermontov describes Princess Mary’s first love with all the nuances, filling this feeling with the beauty of sensation and the beauty of hope. The girl with “velvet eyes” turns into a woman who understands her power, her strength, and does not allow the thought that she might not be liked. And in this situation, Pechorin is almost pathetic when he says that he was joking, laughing at the princess. The girl’s offended feeling says: “I hate you,” but, in fact, the winner here was Mary, and not Pechorin, who only played his role poorly. And Lermontov showed this with great skill.

Next to this unnecessary romance of Pechorin with a girl whom he did not want to insult or humiliate, but just to flirt, a great feeling arises - the love of Vera. How often we do not understand the artist's intention! Even such a thoughtful and subtle critic as Belinsky, and the talented Vl. Nabokov could not understand the significance of the image of Vera for revealing the character of Pechorin and for the entire novel. Nabokov wrote that this is an “unnecessary” image. What does “unnecessary” mean when through it we see the whole of Pechorin, the real, deep revelation of his character? Nabokov lists the stylistic flaws, blunders, repetitions and patterns that he carefully found in the novel. But he did not see the psychology of the hero of the time. Behind all the formalistic mistakes he saw the “harmony of particulars.” Nabokov understood everything like a formalist. But at the same time, he likes the novel, as a Russian who grew up reading stories about Russia.

Special mention must be made about the image of Vera. After all, in essence, the entire love-romantic part of the story unfolds against the background of the history of the relationship between Vera and Pechorin. Surrendering completely to this love, being its victim, Vera at the same time owns Pechorin himself, his soul, his past, which never passes for him, his present. And who knows the future? Everything is broken in this world: Pechorin does not marry Vera, because he is terribly afraid of the word “marriage”; marriage bonds for him are worse than prison chains. But he, narcissistic, smart, allows one of the biggest abominations: sharing love with another.

He who does not tolerate opponents at all and has no rivals. And when, it would seem, he got rid of this contradiction, physically moved away, moved to another city, he did not get rid of love, he still loves Vera, and, what’s even worse, she still loves him. And there is no force that could stop their passion. This passion is so great and captivating that it almost occupies a dominant place in the narrative. High pathos seems to be crossed out by vulgarity love relationship Faith with her husband, and no explanations by the conventions of the time or environment provide justification for this behavior. And Pechorin himself understands perfectly well that this is a feeling from which he is running and cannot escape. And the vulgarity of his position only teases and irritates the pride of Pechorin, who is not used to having rivals. This constant duality of Vera not only does not oppress her, but gives birth in her to the strength of love for Pechorin. In this feeling, the strength of Vera’s physical endurance burns out. And all that remains is the desire to adapt to life before all women’s credit has been exhausted, that is, to get married. This entire novel, as if standing “behind the scenes,” is the main thing in revealing the character of the hero and the composition of the work as a whole.

The description of this great feeling is interspersed with the everyday life, the pettiness that surrounds people. And Pechorin is terribly unfair when he complains about boredom, because he has no time to be bored. He is completely absorbed in his relationship with Vera, where the past turns out to be stronger than the present, and life requires a response to the everyday, the ordinary, the current. And so everyday is the officer environment in the novel, which is opposed to Pechorin: Grushnitsky, the dragoon captain, etc. Grushnitsky sees that “combat happiness” is entirely on Pechorin’s side. The princess's sympathies are on his side. Grushnitsky is very upset by this, but the others, especially the dragoon captain, are very amused. It is clear that everyone is bored, and pitting two rivals against each other is very entertaining. What can be the measure of the highest virtue of an officer? Of course, courage. And to say about Pechorin that he is a coward is in itself courage, because it is not true. And this greatly humiliates Pechorin, who always opposed himself to others. So - detailed description conspiracy, narration of a duel, description of a place, site; finally, the story of the unloaded pistol and Pechorin’s revelation of the conspiracy at the last moment. Pechorin’s opponents want to turn the tragic act of a duel into a farce when he aims an unloaded pistol. But Pechorin exposes the criminal vaudeville act invented by the dragoon captain. The boy Grushnitsky understands how far the dragoon captain's plan has gone, and tells him that Pechorin and Werner are right. But his boyish pride and the opinion of the dragoon captain do not allow him to abandon the slander.

“Shoot!<...>There is no place for the two of us on earth...” - the pathos of speech does not leave poor Grushnitsky even at this moment. How clever man, Pechorin understands that this boy, who is 21 years old, is driven by pride. Why didn't he shoot in the air? Because the resentment that he could become the inevitable victim of this conspiracy is too strong. And here when we're talking about about life and death, Pechorin could not rise above Grushnitsky. And our respect for the hero fades, just as it faded with Werner (“You can sleep peacefully... if you can...”). Thus, an insignificant satisfaction of pride turned into a human tragedy. They will tell us: such was the order, honor. But everything was different. And the novel is remarkable because Lermontov brilliantly captured precisely these features of human weakness. Where it came from - from the general character of the time or from the personal qualities of a person - is already the writer’s secret, but he revealed it and showed it to us.

But the “end of comedy” is not yet in sight. Pechorin received two letters after the duel: Vera’s letter Pechorin is afraid to read and first reads Werner’s letter containing a reproach. That’s how they all are: at first they sympathize and help, and when something has happened, they don’t approve and retreat... Vera’s letter reported on a difficult explanation with her husband and expressed feelings that Pechorin knows to the last drop, but still reads greedily. .. Only one thought - to say goodbye. For what? After all, the last kiss and handshake will not save anything. Why this crazy run? But he will still be there, and Pechorin drives his horse along the Kislovodsk road. He flies like a whirlwind. The horse stumbled, made several jerks and fell dead. Then Pechorin realized that he was left alone in the steppe. And here before us is the revelation of Pechorin, his suffering, helplessness... He was pitiful, like a powerless creature that had lost everything: “... all my firmness, all my composure - disappeared like smoke. The soul became weak, the mind fell silent...”

It was here that all of Pechorin revealed himself, revealed himself tragically, truly. He realized how deep and hopeless human suffering is. How he, a strong-willed man, a brave officer, does not value own life and flirts with himself, supposedly he doesn’t need life? But when it's real big life he is captivated - not by a masquerade existence, but by a life that touches the soul, an infinitely dear life, the only one and therefore necessary and beautiful, addressed to a dear being with whom he, perhaps, is parting forever - then he appears before us in all his nakedness human weakness and human nobility. Now he won’t say: pick a flower, inhale and throw it away, maybe someone will pick it up - you yourself pick up this flower that you inhaled! This is where the whole tragedy of Pechorin’s character was revealed. The hopeless pain that gripped him, everything human that came out. With what aching pain he realized that he was the same as everyone else, and only in vain tried to resist everyone, posing as something greater, standing above a person, and himself believing in it. Only now did he understand it. Just as well as the reader understood that he is a hero of the time. Reproaches: is it really like that? bad person may be a hero of the times - now removed for the reader. Pechorin is a hero of the times because he is just like everyone else.

But this awakening is only for a few hours. After this, Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin will again put on the “uniform” of a cynic, a skeptic, a person who is confident that evil is attractive, a person indifferent to everything. So the tragedy of a man of the lost generation of the 40s of the 19th century stood before us in full force, where, along with noble impulses, the author, with extraordinary cruelty, showed the other side of the hero’s behavior. Eavesdropping, spying, tracking - all the everyday espionage that Pechorin resorts to cannot be noble by its nature. This life practice is the tragedy of a generation. In essence, Pechorin is not who he claims to be - he constantly mocks those who take him seriously: “There are two people in me”; “Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a scoundrel. Both will be false.” In his imagination he considers himself great, or at least believes in his great destiny. In reality, he perfectly understands the limitations of his spiritual (inner) existence. Hence the hero “on stilts”. His reality lies in the fact that he shows his inconsistency, the contradictions that constantly tear him apart. The reality is that big man I couldn’t realize myself. But besides this, we saw Pechorin in his true light and did not dare not feel sorry for him, for nothing human is alien to him.

Lermontov's romanticism is interesting because the writer combines styles, widely using realism, even naturalism, even sentimentalism (“Hero of Our Time,” chapter “Princess Mary”). First Russian psychological novel written at a time when romanticism as such was already losing its charming popularity. For Lermontov, romanticism was never a transitional stage from one style to another. Both at the beginning of his work and later, throughout all the years, he remained a consistent romantic. Without placing this direction below realistic art, Lermontov brilliantly showed in his perfect works that every style in its complete completion objectively depicts reality.

The purpose of the lesson: analysis of the part “Princess Mary”, comparison of the actions and characters of the heroes of this story with the character of Pechorin, training in monologue speech and elements of analysis of the author’s style.

Vocabulary work: plot self-sufficiency, climax, philosophical issues, symbolic meaning of the image.

During the classes

I. Conversation

The story “Princess Mary” is perceived as the main story in the novel. Why do you think?

The story is characterized by plot self-sufficiency; this is the culmination of Pechorin's diary; it contains most discussions about the soul and fate; In the chapter, the philosophical content of the novel receives the most detailed development.

II. Group work

The initial impetus for all events is given by the relationship between Pechorin and Grushnitsky. Analyze the history of their friendship and enmity. Compare this with the situation “Onegin - Lensky” and with Pushkin’s discussion of friendship in the second chapter of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

Analyze the history of the relationship between Pechorin and Princess Mary. For comparison, in “Fatalist,” pay attention to the episode with the policeman’s daughter Nastya as an example of Pechorin’s usual indifference to women.

How and why does the relationship between Pechorin and Vera develop? What does the tragic scene of the chase for Vera indicate (compare it with the chase scene in the story “Bela”, paying attention to the symbolic meaning of the image of a horse in both cases).

Analyze the relationship between Pechorin and Dr. Werner. How did Pechorin’s relationship with the “water society” develop? Why?

Compare the endings of “Princess Mary” and “Tamani”. Expressive reading fragments.

This is a difficult task, and the children should be helped to conclude that while the theme is common - the seascape - there is a significant difference: in “Taman” it is a real landscape, and in “Princess Mary” it is an imaginary one, a romantic emblem of Pechorin’s inner world.

How does Pechorin’s personality manifest itself in the manner of keeping a diary? In its content?

III. Checking students' perception of the text. Dispute

Why is Pechorin like a foreign element wherever he appears?

How is the century characterized through the main character of Lermontov’s novel?

2. In groups, compose questions to test knowledge of the text of the chapter “Taman”.

Lesson 47. Learning to analyze an episode

(based on the chapter “Taman”)

The purpose of the lesson: teaching the main stages of analyzing an episode of a literary text.

Information for teachers

Students have already worked on analyzing part of the work (see lesson 24). Considering that the word “episode” in exam topics suggests precisely a part of the text for analysis this lesson we will take the chapter “Taman”. Considering also that this is a prose text, not a dramatic one, let us slightly change the structure of the analysis.

During the classes

I. We offer students a plan for working with the episode

Consider the episode from the inside:

a) microplot;

b) composition;

Make immediate connections, consider the episode in a system of other episodes.

Pay attention to possible overlaps between episodes and other works.

Connect your observations to the theme, idea of ​​the work, the author's worldview and skill.

II. Working with a detailed essay plan(distributed to each table)

The role of the chapter “Taman” in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”:

1. Division into parts that differ in plot and characters is a distinctive feature of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

2. The role of the chapter “Taman” in the novel.

3. The plot of the chapter, its construction.

4. The character of Pechorin, emerging from the events described; how the central situation of the chapter helps to reveal his character.

5. Laconism of the story, accuracy and simplicity as distinctive features narratives.

6. Landscape, contrast, romantic motifs, accurate recreation of everyday life, depiction of an exotic world - ways of expressing the author’s position.

7. “Taman” is the first part of Pechorin’s diary entries; from this chapter the “self-disclosure” of the hero begins.

8. The influence of the chapter on Russian literature (N. N. Tolstoy’s story “Plastun” and the poem “By the Sea” by N. Ogarev).

9. High assessment of “Tamani” by V. Belinsky: “We did not dare to make extracts from this story, because it absolutely does not allow them: it is like some kind of lyrical poem, all the charm of which is destroyed by one verse released or changed not by the hand of the poet himself ..."

The transformation of a cycle of stories into a psychological novel is an innovative solution to the problem of the Russian novel and the beginning of its further development by Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

Homework

1. Prepare for the final work on the works of M. Yu. Lermontov.

3. Individual tasks: prepare a review of books about Gogol on general theme"Interesting about Gogol."

4. Homework. My favorite pages of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.” Episode analysis.

Information for teachers

The theme of fate and chance in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”

The theme of fate and chance runs through the entire novel “A Hero of Our Time” and becomes central in the story “Fatalist”.

The events described in “Fatalist” are recorded by Pechorin in his own diary at approximately the same time as the story about the duel with Grushnitsky. It seems that Pechorina during her stay in the fortress N worries about some question, in an attempt to clarify which records appear about the duel and the incident with Vulich. This is the same question, so the events of “Fatalist” must be correlated specifically with the duel. What kind of question is this?

This is an opportunity to fight against chance. Why does Pechorin go to a duel with Grushnitsky? Indeed, from the very beginning, Pechorin tries to convince us that Grushnitsky is immeasurably lower than him, he does not miss the opportunity to prick Grushnitsky and literally forces us to believe that everything that happens looks exactly as he, Pechorin, describes. In the scene with the fallen glass, it may have really been painful for the wounded Grushnitsky to bend over, but in Pechorin’s presentation, Grushnitsky appears to be depicting suffering.

In general, Pechorin denies Grushnitsky the right be; portray, seem, pretend - yes, but not be. This is the privilege of Pechorin alone. Pechorin, without meaning to, in his diary reveals his passion to be above everyone - even when describing a completely stranger lady at the ball, he does not miss the opportunity to notice the “variegation of unsmooth skin” and a large wart on the neck, covered with a clasp. Pechorin is generally extremely perceptive, but why record observations like these in a diary, which, in his own words, is kept by him for himself and should, over time, serve as a “precious memory” for him? What joy did Pechorin want to experience in his declining years, remembering this wart? But the point is not in a specific external defect that has not gone away watchful eye Pechorin, the fact is that he practically cannot help but notice human shortcomings, those same “weak strings” that he is so proud of knowing. This is a feature of his, Pechorin’s, vision, and it stems primarily from the desire to be the best, the highest.

However, everything looks like this only in the diary, where Pechorin is the owner, where he creates his own world, placing the accents he needs. Real life, obviously, differs from what was desired, and therefore anxiety penetrates Pechorin’s notes. He had just convinced us of Grushnitsky’s insignificance, looked down on him, when suddenly he dropped the phrase: “... I feel that we will someday collide with him on a narrow road, and one of us will be in trouble.” Maybe there are “strong strings” in Grushnitsky, the existence of which Pechorin cannot admit to himself? Or does this Pechorin feel like a not-so-unequivocal celestial being? One way or another, the fight with Grushnitsky is so serious and intense that one cannot help but feel that this is how one fights only with an equal opponent.

Pechorin’s anxiety has another basis. Pechorin is actually smart, observant, cold-blooded, courageous, and decisive. He is used to achieving everything he wants. However, Pechorin cannot help but be concerned about the limits of his capabilities, his power. Is there something in the world that cannot be defeated with Pechorin’s skills, which, as a rule, bring success? Can he always “be on horseback”, keep the situation under control, calculate everything down to the smallest detail? Or are there cases that do not depend on it? The duel with Grushnitsky becomes for Pechorin not only a struggle with a person who dared to want to become on the same level with Pechorin, but also an opportunity to clarify his relationship with such by chance who do not want to obey the will and reason of man. Paradoxically, this is precisely why it is extremely important for Pechorin that Grushnitsky should be the first to shoot. And the point is not only that Pechorin has an internal justification for the murder; it is much more important that only in this situation can one enter into combat with chance. If Pechorin had shot first, he would have won without any doubt. But he would defeat a man, which is no longer news either for Pechorin or for us. But when Grushnitsky shoots first, when the muzzle of the gun is pointed at you, that’s when the deadly game begins, that same terrible experience that, like Vulich a little later, Pechorin will also try on himself.

What are the potential costs? Grushnitsky can simply miss or shoot to the side - then Pechorin wins, because the next shot will be his. Such an outcome, as well as generally winning the right to fire the first shot, would have been desirable for Pechorin if he had fought against specific person and would like his physical destruction, or at least that alone. However, the essence of the matter lies much deeper, and to resolve this matter, Pechorin needs a situation that is as unfavorable as possible for him. So, Grushnitsky must shoot and at the same time aim at Pechorin, and Pechorin himself will stand on the edge of the cliff, so that even the slightest wound will cause a fall and death - these are the initial conditions under which it will be possible to measure strength against chance. In a situation where everything is against him, Pechorin directs all his remarkable strength, all his knowledge about human nature to literally split, break Grushnitsky from the inside, squeeze him out, plunge him into such an abyss of internal struggle that he, even aiming at Pechorin, won't be able to get in. And Pechorin achieves this. And this becomes his real victory - solely by force of one's own will he managed not to leave a single loophole unfavorable for the outcome of the case; he managed to make sure that almost all possible outcomes could be completely calculated. This is breathtaking, because it is likely that chance, fate and all sorts of other transpersonal forces that were given such importance, in fact seem strong only because a person of such abilities, such firmness of such will has never appeared.

It is from here that the thread to “Fatalist” stretches. The word "case" has a special meaning. In fact, Pechorin faces the same case with his power in “Fatalist”.

Literally before his eyes, the same type of event happens to Vulich twice: something exceptional happens to him, truly one case in a thousand. For the first time, a loaded pistol misfires and it is precisely at the moment when Vulich shoots himself, for the second time - a meeting with a drunken Cossack, the intersection of the whimsical and winding paths of two people at one point in time and space. Let us note that the uniqueness of what happened is specially emphasized: if the gun had simply not been loaded, the incident could be called almost ordinary; It was not just the meeting that led to Vulich’s death - he also approached the Cossack and spoke to him. But with this general exclusivity, the two incidents have opposite results: in the first time, as a result of the accident, Vulich remains alive, and in the second, he dies. Is it because Pechorin was shocked when he learned about Vulich’s death that before his eyes the case again demonstrates its strength, omnipotence, unpredictability, and uncontrollability? Chance controls a person’s life; chance does what it wants. Is it not because the events of “Fatalist” are recorded in the diary that Pechorin cannot come to terms with what he saw, and what he saw precisely when he had just remembered and written down to the smallest detail how character overcomes this very incident (the duel with Grushnitsky)?

And Pechorin decides to test himself once again, to duel with fate once again. And again he wins: as a result of his calculation, his decisive and cold-blooded actions, he manages to accomplish the almost impossible - to capture a Cossack locked in a house.

So, fight against chance. Constantly figuring out who wins. And a permanent victory, at least within the novel.

The appearance of Lermontov's novel immediately caused heated controversy, revealing the polar opposite of his interpretations and assessments. Before others, he appreciated “Hero...” with extraordinary fidelity. Belinsky, in the very first printed response to the novel, noting in it “a deep sense of reality”, “richness of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society", "originality and originality" of the work, representing "absolutely new world art." The critic concretized and developed these thoughts in a long article dedicated to “Hero...” and published in the summer of 1840 in OZ, showing the enormous life-cognitive, socio-psychological and philosophical significance of the image of Pechorin, as well as the novel as a whole. Protective criticism attacked Lermontov's novel, seeing in it, especially in the image of Pechorin, slander of Russian reality.

Belinsky’s view of the essence and meaning of “Hero...” was largely developed in new historical conditions N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov. Chernyshevsky indicated the role of “Hero...” in the formation psychological analysis in the works of L. N. Tolstoy (“dialectics of the soul”). At the same time, while agreeing to recognize Pechorin as the socio-psychological type of his time, the revolutionary democrats somewhat underestimated the moral and philosophical content of this image, sometimes too straightforwardly contrasting him and other “superfluous people” of the 1830s-1840s with the commoners of the sixties. Pechorin’s lack of socially useful activity, considered from the perspective of modern tasks, was interpreted by Dobrolyubov as a manifestation of the social essence of his character, whose name is “Oblomovshchina” (“What is Oblomovshchina?”, 1859). Herzen turned out to be more historical in his interpretation of the essence and meaning of “superfluous people,” in particular Onegin and Pechorin. In Art. “Superfluous people and bile people” (1860), opposing their identification with modern liberals, he emphasized that “ extra people were then as necessary as it is now necessary for them not to exist.” At the same time, Herzen was inclined to identify Lermontov with Pechorin, arguing that the poet died in the desperate hopelessness of Pechorin’s direction...”

Slavophile and liberal-Western criticism (K. S. Aksakov, S. S. Dudyshkin, A. V. Druzhinin, etc.) came closer in their rejection of the “Lermontov direction”; Lermontov was declared the last Russian poet of the imitative era, accordingly exaggerating the importance of Western European sources for the image of Pechorin. In the research literature, this tendency was most clearly manifested in the works of comparativists (E. Duchesne, S. I. Rodzevich, etc.), in which, despite some accurate observations, the search for the context of “parallels” prevailed. More meaningful were the studies of representatives of the cultural-historical school (A. N. Pypin, N. A. Kotlyarevsky). In their works, the idea of ​​Lermontov’s “reconciliation” with life, which was developed in pre-revolutionary literature, was first outlined. Populist criticism in the person of N.K. Mikhailovsky, on the contrary, put the protesting principle in the first place in Lermontov’s work, but the false theory of “the crowd and the hero” prevented one from penetrating the true essence of Pechorin’s image.

Symbolists of the early twentieth century. (Vl. S. Solovyov, D. S. Merezhkovsky) examined the poetic heritage and novel of Lermontov without connection with specific historical problems, trying to find a mystical, “superhuman” beginning in the author and his heroes. Representative psychological school D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky derived the content of “Hero...” from the depths of the author’s psychology, identifying Lermontov with Pechorin, considering the main thing in their characters to be innate “egocentrism”. At the same time, M. Gorky examined Lermontov’s work from a different socio-historical position in the course of Russian literature, read in 1909 at the Capri school. The main thing in it for Gorky is “a greedy desire for action, active intervention in life.” Emphasizing the typicality of Pechorin and at the same time his spiritual closeness to the author, Gorky did not identify them, noting that “Lermontov was broader and deeper than his hero.” New methodological principles in the study of the novel have been identified in a number of general works about Lermontov and his era, belonging to representatives of early Marxist criticism (G.V. Plekhanov, A.V. Lunacharsky); they raised questions about the social content of Lermontov’s work and its connection with the social movement.
The originality of the plot and composition of the novel 1

“A Hero of Our Time” is both similar and unlike the traditional novel that has developed in the West. It does not tell about an incident or event with a beginning and ending that exhausts the action. Each story has its own plot. The fourth story is closest to the traditional novel - “Princess Mary”, however, its ending contradicts the Western European tradition and, on the scale of the entire work, is in no way a denouement, but implicitly motivates the situation of “Bela”, placed in first place in the overall narrative - explains why Pechorin ended up in the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych. “Bela”, “Taman”, “Fatalist” are replete with adventures, “Princess Mary” - with intrigues: short work, “A Hero of Our Time,” unlike “Eugene Onegin,” is oversaturated with action. It contains a lot of conventional, strictly speaking, implausible, but just typical situations for novels. Maxim Maksimych has just told a random fellow traveler the story of Pechorin and Bela, and immediately their meeting with Pechorin takes place. In different stories, the heroes repeatedly eavesdrop and spy - without this there would be neither the story with the smugglers, nor the exposure of the conspiracy of the dragoon Getmtan and Grushnitsky against Pechorin. Main character predicts his death on the way, and so it happens. At the same time, “Maksim Maksimych” is almost devoid of action; it is primarily a psychological sketch. And all the various events are not valuable in themselves, but are aimed at revealing the character of the hero, identifying and explaining his tragic fate.

The compositional rearrangement of events in time serves the same purpose. Pechorin's monologues, addressed to his past, constitute the novel's backstory. For some reason, this St. Petersburg aristocrat turned out to be an army officer in the Caucasus, travels there through Taman “on the road for official business,” then, together with Grushnitsky, participates in battles, as mentioned in “Princess Mary,” and after a while meets him in Pyatigorsk. After the duel, he lives “for a year” with Maxim Maksimych in the fortress, from where he leaves for two weeks to the Cossack village. Upon retirement, he probably lives in St. Petersburg, then travels. It takes place in Vladikavkaz chance meeting with Maxim Maksimych and an officer engaged in literature, who receives from the staff captain “some notes...” and subsequently publishes them, providing a preface beginning with the words: “I recently learned that Pechorin, returning from Persia, died.” The sequence of “chapters” in the novel is as follows: “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”; “Pechorin’s Journal” - publisher’s preface, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”. That is, the action begins in the middle after the announcement of the death of the hero, which is highly unusual, and the preceding events are presented thanks to the journal after those that occurred later. This intrigues the reader, makes him reflect on the mystery of Pechorin’s personality, and explain to himself his “great oddities.”

As the events are presented, as they are presented in the novel, Pechorin’s bad deeds accumulate, but his guilt is felt less and less and his virtues emerge more and more clearly. In "Bel", on his whim, he commits a series of crimes, although according to the concepts of the nobility and officers who participated in Caucasian War, they are not. In “Maxim Maksimych” and “Taman” everything goes without blood, and in the first of these stories Pechorin unwittingly offended an old friend, and in the second his victims only strangers without moral principles (the girl is ready to drown Pechorin on one suspicion of wanting to inform, she and Yanko abandon the old woman and the blind boy to the mercy of fate). In “Princess Mary” Pechorin is very guilty, the people around him are mostly completely vile - they turn the “comedy” he conceived into a heavy drama with the death of a person, not the worst of them. Finally, in “The Fatalist” it is not Pechorin’s bet with Vulich that has a tragic outcome, but then Pechorin accomplishes a real feat, capturing a Cossack killer, whom they wanted to “shoot” practically in front of his mother, without giving him the opportunity to repent, even though he “ not a cursed Chechen, but an honest Christian.”

Of course, changing narrators plays an important role. Maxim Maksimych is too simple to understand Pechorin; he mainly sets out external events. The long monologue Pechorin conveyed to him about his past is conditionally motivated: “So he spoke for a long time, and his Words were etched in my memory, because for the first time I heard such things from a 25-year-old man, and, God willing, for the last.. .” The words of the staff captain: “I have always said that there is no use in those who forget old friends!..” (“Maksim Maksimych”) are worth his reaction to the officer’s explanation that the “fashion of being bored” was introduced by the British (available in in mind, of course, Byron): “... but they were always notorious drunkards!” (“Bela”).

The writer who denounces Pechorin with his own eyes is a man of his circle; he sees and understands much more than the old Caucasian. But he is devoid of direct sympathy for Pechorin, the news of whose death made him “very happy” with the opportunity to publish a magazine and “put his name on someone else’s work.” It may be a joke, but it's too dark a reason. Finally, Pechorin himself fearlessly, without trying to justify himself in anything, talks about himself, analyzes his thoughts and actions. In “Taman” events are still in the foreground, in “Princess Mary” experiences and reasoning are no less significant, and in “Fatalist” the very title of the story is a philosophical problem.

But the most important thing, for the sake of which the events are rearranged in time, is how Pechorin leaves the novel. We know that he ran out of steam and died young. However, the novel ends with the only act of Pechorin that is worthy of it. “The people dispersed, the officers congratulated me - and certainly there was something to be said for.” “The Fatalist” does not contain any plot resolution on the scale of the entire novel; the last phrase only gives a passing characterization of Maxim Maksimych, who “does not like metaphysical debates at all.” But we say goodbye not only to the “hero of the time,” but also to a real hero who could have accomplished wonderful things if his fate had turned out differently. This, according to Lermontov, is how he should be most remembered by the reader. The compositional technique expresses the author’s hidden optimism, his faith in man.

Lesson 46. The Age of Lermontov in the Novel

The purpose of the lesson: analysis of the part “Princess Mary”, comparison of the actions and characters of the heroes of this story with the character of Pechorin, training in monologue speech and elements of analysis of the author’s style.

Vocabulary work: plot self-sufficiency, climax, philosophical issues, symbolic meaning of the image.
During the classes

I. Conversation

The story “Princess Mary” is perceived as the main story in the novel. Why do you think?

The story is characterized by plot self-sufficiency; this is the culmination of Pechorin's diary; it contains most discussions about the soul and fate; In the chapter, the philosophical content of the novel receives the most detailed development.
II. Group work

The initial impetus for all events is given by the relationship between Pechorin and Grushnitsky. Analyze the history of their friendship and enmity. Compare this with the situation “Onegin - Lensky” and with Pushkin’s discussion of friendship in the second chapter of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

Analyze the history of the relationship between Pechorin and Princess Mary. For comparison, in “Fatalist,” pay attention to the episode with the policeman’s daughter Nastya as an example of Pechorin’s usual indifference to women.

How and why does the relationship between Pechorin and Vera develop? What does the tragic scene of the chase for Vera indicate (compare it with the chase scene in the story “Bela”, paying attention to the symbolic meaning of the image of a horse in both cases).

Analyze the relationship between Pechorin and Dr. Werner. How did Pechorin’s relationship with the “water society” develop? Why?

Compare the endings of “Princess Mary” and “Tamani”. Expressive reading of passages.

This is a difficult task, and the children should be helped to conclude that while the theme is common - the seascape - there is a significant difference: in “Taman” it is a real landscape, and in “Princess Mary” it is an imaginary one, a romantic emblem of Pechorin’s inner world.

How does Pechorin’s personality manifest itself in the manner of keeping a diary? In its content?
III. Checking students' perception of the text. Dispute

Why is Pechorin like a foreign element wherever he appears?

How is the century characterized through the main character of Lermontov’s novel?
Homework

2. In groups, compose questions to test knowledge of the text of the chapter “Taman”.

Lesson 47. Learning to analyze an episode

(based on the chapter “Taman”)

The purpose of the lesson: teaching the main stages of analyzing an episode of a literary text.

Students have already worked on analyzing part of the work (see lesson 24). Considering that the word “episode” in exam topics suggests precisely a part of the text for analysis in this lesson, we will take the chapter “Taman”. Considering also that this is a prose text, not a dramatic one, let us slightly change the structure of the analysis.
During the classes

I. We offer students a plan for working with the episode

Consider the episode from the inside:

a) microplot;

b) composition;

Make immediate connections, consider the episode in a system of other episodes.

Pay attention to possible overlaps between episodes and other works.

Connect your observations to the theme, idea of ​​the work, the author's worldview and skill.
II. Working with a detailed essay plan(distributed to each table)

The role of the chapter “Taman” in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”:

1. Division into parts that differ in plot and characters is a distinctive feature of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

2. The role of the chapter “Taman” in the novel.

3. The plot of the chapter, its construction.

4. The character of Pechorin, emerging from the events described; how the central situation of the chapter helps to reveal his character.

5. Laconism of the story, accuracy and simplicity as distinctive features of the narrative.

6. Landscape, contrast, romantic motifs, accurate recreation of everyday life, depiction of an exotic world - ways of expressing the author’s position.

7. “Taman” is the first part of Pechorin’s diary entries; from this chapter the “self-disclosure” of the hero begins.

8. The influence of the chapter on Russian literature (N. N. Tolstoy’s story “Plastun” and the poem “By the Sea” by N. Ogarev).

9. High assessment of “Tamani” by V. Belinsky: “We did not dare to make extracts from this story, because it absolutely does not allow them: it is like some kind of lyrical poem, all the charm of which is destroyed by one verse released or changed not by the hand of the poet himself ..."

The transformation of a cycle of stories into a psychological novel is an innovative solution to the problem of the Russian novel and the beginning of its further development by Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
Homework

1. Prepare for the final work on the works of M. Yu. Lermontov.

3. Individual tasks: prepare a review of books about Gogol on the general topic “Interesting about Gogol.”

4. Homework. My favorite pages of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.” Episode analysis.
Information for teachers

The theme of fate and chance in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” 1

The theme of fate and chance runs through the entire novel “A Hero of Our Time” and becomes central in the story “Fatalist”.

The events described in “Fatalist” are recorded by Pechorin in his own diary at approximately the same time as the story about the duel with Grushnitsky. It seems that Pechorina during her stay in the fortress N worries about some question, in an attempt to clarify which records appear about the duel and the incident with Vulich. This is the same question, so the events of “Fatalist” must be correlated specifically with the duel. What kind of question is this?

This is an opportunity to fight against chance. Why does Pechorin go to a duel with Grushnitsky? Indeed, from the very beginning, Pechorin tries to convince us that Grushnitsky is immeasurably lower than him, he does not miss the opportunity to prick Grushnitsky and literally forces us to believe that everything that happens looks exactly as he, Pechorin, describes. In the scene with the fallen glass, it may have really been painful for the wounded Grushnitsky to bend over, but in Pechorin’s presentation, Grushnitsky appears to be depicting suffering.

In general, Pechorin denies Grushnitsky the right be; portray, seem, pretend - yes, but not be. This is the privilege of Pechorin alone. Pechorin, without meaning to, in his diary reveals his passion to be above everyone - even when describing a completely stranger lady at the ball, he does not miss the opportunity to notice the “variegation of unsmooth skin” and a large wart on the neck, covered with a clasp. Pechorin is generally extremely perceptive, but why record observations like these in a diary, which, in his own words, is kept by him for himself and should, over time, serve as a “precious memory” for him? What joy did Pechorin want to experience in his declining years, remembering this wart? But the point is not in a specific external defect that did not escape Pechorin’s keen eye, the point is that he practically cannot help but notice human shortcomings, those very “weak strings”, the knowledge of which he is so proud of. This is a feature of his, Pechorin’s, vision, and it stems primarily from the desire to be the best, the highest.

However, everything looks like this only in the diary, where Pechorin is the owner, where he creates his own world, placing the accents he needs. Real life, obviously, differs from what is desired, and therefore anxiety penetrates Pechorin’s notes. He had just convinced us of Grushnitsky’s insignificance, looked down on him, when suddenly he dropped the phrase: “... I feel that we will someday collide with him on a narrow road, and one of us will be in trouble.” Maybe there are “strong strings” in Grushnitsky, the existence of which Pechorin cannot admit to himself? Or does this Pechorin feel like a not-so-unequivocal celestial being? One way or another, the fight with Grushnitsky is so serious and intense that one cannot help but feel that this is how one fights only with an equal opponent.

Pechorin’s anxiety has another basis. Pechorin is actually smart, observant, cold-blooded, courageous, and decisive. He is used to achieving everything he wants. However, Pechorin cannot help but be concerned about the limits of his capabilities, his power. Is there something in the world that cannot be defeated with Pechorin’s skills, which, as a rule, bring success? Can he always “be on horseback”, keep the situation under control, calculate everything down to the smallest detail? Or are there cases that do not depend on it? The duel with Grushnitsky becomes for Pechorin not only a struggle with a person who dared to want to become on the same level with Pechorin, but also an opportunity to clarify his relationship with such by chance who do not want to obey the will and reason of man. Paradoxically, this is precisely why it is extremely important for Pechorin that Grushnitsky should be the first to shoot. And the point is not only that Pechorin has an internal justification for the murder; it is much more important that only in this situation can one enter into combat with chance. If Pechorin had shot first, he would have won without any doubt. But he would defeat a man, which is no longer news either for Pechorin or for us. But when Grushnitsky shoots first, when the muzzle of the gun is pointed at you, that’s when the deadly game begins, that same terrible experience that, like Vulich a little later, Pechorin will also try on himself.

What are the potential costs? Grushnitsky can simply miss or shoot to the side - then Pechorin wins, because the next shot will be his. Such an outcome, as well as generally winning the right to fire the first shot, would be desirable for Pechorin if he were fighting with a specific person and wanted his physical destruction, or at least only that. However, the essence of the matter lies much deeper, and to resolve this matter, Pechorin needs a situation that is as unfavorable as possible for him. So, Grushnitsky must shoot and at the same time aim at Pechorin, and Pechorin himself will stand on the edge of the cliff, so that even the slightest wound will cause a fall and death - these are the initial conditions under which it will be possible to measure strength against chance. In a situation where everything is against him, Pechorin directs all his remarkable strength, all his knowledge about human nature to literally split, break Grushnitsky from the inside, squeeze him out, plunge him into such an abyss of internal struggle that he, even aiming at Pechorin, won't be able to get in. And Pechorin achieves this. And this becomes his real victory - solely by the power of his own will, he managed not to leave a single loophole for an unfavorable outcome of the case, he managed to make sure that almost all possible outcomes could be completely calculated. This is breathtaking, because it is likely that chance, fate and all sorts of other transpersonal forces that were given such importance, in fact seem strong only because a person of such abilities, such firmness of such will has never appeared.

It is from here that the thread to “Fatalist” stretches. The word "case" has a special meaning. In fact, Pechorin faces the same case with his power in “Fatalist”.

Literally before his eyes, the same type of event happens to Vulich twice: something exceptional happens to him, truly one case in a thousand. For the first time, a loaded pistol misfires and it is precisely at the moment when Vulich shoots himself, for the second time - a meeting with a drunken Cossack, the intersection of the whimsical and winding paths of two people at one point in time and space. Let us note that the uniqueness of what happened is specially emphasized: if the gun had simply not been loaded, the incident could be called almost ordinary; It was not just the meeting that led to Vulich’s death - he also approached the Cossack and spoke to him. But with this general exclusivity, the two incidents have opposite results: in the first time, as a result of the accident, Vulich remains alive, and in the second, he dies. Is it because Pechorin was shocked when he learned about Vulich’s death that before his eyes the case again demonstrates its strength, omnipotence, unpredictability, and uncontrollability? Chance controls a person’s life; chance does what it wants. Is it not because the events of “Fatalist” are recorded in the diary that Pechorin cannot come to terms with what he saw, and what he saw precisely when he had just remembered and written down to the smallest detail how character overcomes this very incident (the duel with Grushnitsky)?

And Pechorin decides to test himself once again, to duel with fate once again. And again he wins: as a result of his calculation, his decisive and cold-blooded actions, he manages to accomplish the almost impossible - to capture a Cossack locked in a house.

So, fight against chance. Constantly figuring out who wins. And a permanent victory, at least within the novel.

Lesson 48. Summary on the works of M. Yu. Lermontov

The purpose of the lesson: identify the mastery of the topic.
During the classes

1. Speech by students of group I: selective retelling of “Bela”.

– Why did the author put the story about Pechorin’s love story into the mouth of Maxim Maksimych?

– Which pages of the story puzzled you and caused you bewilderment? Remember, for example, the contrasting episodes: Pechorin’s unforgettable hunt - and his fear, confusion, barely “knocking the shutter.”

– How were Bela’s kidnapping and Pechorin’s “romance” received in the fortress? And his creepy laughter when Maxim Maksimych remembered the death of “unfortunate Bela”? What words of Pechorin, perhaps, will explain the story with Bela, shed light on this mysterious page of his life?

2. Speech by students of group II on the narrative “Maksim Maksimych”. Artistic retelling: portrait of Pechorin.

– Which of the heroes gives a portrait of Pechorin? Why?

– Why does the scene of Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych make you sympathize with Pechorin too?

– In the novel there is a confession by Pechorin, which, it would seem, could explain his character, would help to understand the hero, who was so unlucky in the opinions of others: “I was ready to love the whole world...” What pages, however, can sow doubt in this? Why, for example, is he so cold and indifferent to Maxim Maksimych at their last meeting?

– What are the secrets of the artistic expressiveness of Pechorin’s portrait?

III. Lesson summary.

Homework: prepare for a commented reading of the story “Princess Mary”; select episodes characterizing the “age of Lermontov”.

Lesson 45

Lermontov's century in the novel

Goals: teach to compare the actions and characters of the heroes of the story with the character of Pechorin; teach monologue speech; analyze the story “Princess Mary”.

During the classes

I. Work on the topic of the lesson.

1. Introductory speech by the teacher.

The story “Princess Mary” is perceived as the main story in the novel. Why do you think? Probably because this story is characterized by plot self-sufficiency; it is the culmination of Pechorin's diary; it contains most discussions about the soul and fate; In this story, the philosophical content of the novel receives the most detailed development.

But before we start working on this story, we will try to find the “key” to Lermontov’s novel and the image of Pechorin. This is probably the hero’s confession, which contains his entire life: “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the light.” Pechorin, however, speaks only about youth, considering it “colorless.” Do you accept this self-esteem? By the way, we know little about Pechorin’s youth. And yet: can it be imagined, “conjectured”? Pechorin constantly falls into self-deprecation: “I did not guess my purpose... I chased the lures of empty and ungrateful passions...” What is your opinion about these confessions of Pechorin?

– But what does this mean – “struggle with yourself and the light”? Who won in this fight?

– Are there changes in art world novel - and in Pechorin?

Let's turn to Taman. By the way, what is the genre of “Tamani”? Is it by chance that Lermontov writes not a story, not a novella, but a novella? Does the genre of this part of the novel correspond to the character of Pechorin?

2. A condensed analytical retelling of “Tamani” (by a trained student). Conversation on the story "Taman".

– Who acts as the narrator? Why?

– What are the secrets of the poetry of “Tamani”? (Did you know that Chekhov was in love with these pages?)

– Is Pechorin changing at Taman? Why, despite the dangers, does he feel so good and at ease in this “bad town”?

– Which confessions of Pechorin seemed especially significant, downright discoveries of Lermontov?

Here is one of them: “I memorized this song word by word.”

3. Work in groups.

Compare the adjacent pages of the novel: “Taman” and “Princess Mary”. Where is it more difficult for Pechorin? And yet: does Taman continue in its own way for Pechorin here, among the “water society”?

– Which pages of the story “guide” the style of “Tamani”, its images? Why does she so stubbornly remind herself of herself, although Pechorin finds himself in a completely different world - among the “light”, the “struggle” with which became his life? But let’s not forget: and with ourselves.

– Does the chapter “Princess Mary” resemble the poems of M. Yu. Lermontov? Compare: “How often surrounded by a motley crowd...” and “Princess Mary.” Why is there the same contrast in the chapter of the novel: “the creation of one’s dreams...” and “an iron verse, drenched in bitterness and anger...”?

– Which pages of “Princess Mary” are especially lyrical and reverent?

Group assignments:

Group I. Pechorin and Vera... How did you see and feel Lermontov’s hero in this “romantic” story?

How and why does the relationship between Pechorin and Vera develop?

What does the tragic scene of the pursuit of Vera indicate? Compare it with the chase scene in the story “Bela”, paying attention to the symbolic meaning of the image of the horse in both cases.

Group II. What about Mary's story? What entry in Pechorin’s diary perhaps surprised you? (“Why am I so stubbornly pursuing the love of a young girl whom I don’t want to seduce and whom I will never marry?”) Is Pechorin mysterious to himself? And yet, perhaps it is possible to explain his actions?

Analyze the history of the relationship between Pechorin and Princess Mary. For comparison: in “Fatalist,” pay attention to the episode with the policeman’s daughter Nastya as an example of Pechorin’s usual indifference to women.

III group. and finally, the story of Grushnitsky.

The initial impetus for all events comes from the relationship of these two young people.

Analyze the history of their friendship and enmity. Compare it with the situation “Onegin - Lensky” and with Pushkin’s reasoning about friendship in Chapter II of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

Why is Pechorin completely different in relation to Grushnitsky: he continually “interferes” with him in his courtship of the princess. What does this remind you of? Another analogy: the same “triangle” as in “Woe from Wit”. Compare the similar pages of Griboedov’s comedy and Lermontov’s novel and the outcome of the “love” fights: Chatsky - Molchalin, Pechorin - Grushnitsky.

Is Pechorin fair in his dealings with people? To Grushnitsky, for example? And isn’t Pechorin cruel towards Princess Mary? Why does Pechorin need this imaginary “romance”?

– What plot twist particularly captivated you? Of course, a duel with Grushnitsky!

Again - Pechorin's strangeness. How did you understand it in the intricacies of events around the duel? How did they react to his shot and the death of Grushnitsky? Compare the duel in “Onegin” and in “Hero of Our Time,” which means Onegin and Pechorin are in their most terrible test.

IV group. Is there a contrasting hero in his relationship with Pechorin in the novel? Is Dr. Werner necessary in the novel?

Analyze Pechorin’s relationship with Dr. Werner.

How did Pechorin’s relationship with the “water society” develop? Why?

4. Comparison of the endings of “Princess Mary” and “Taman”. Expressive reading of passages.

Despite the common theme - the seascape - there is a significant difference: in “Taman” it is a real landscape, and in “Princess Mary” it is an imaginary one, a romantic emblem of Pechorin’s inner world.

– How does Pechorin’s personality manifest itself in the manner of keeping a diary?

5. Dispute on the topic “Pechorin – a hero of his time?”

– Why is Pechorin a kind of foreign element wherever he appears?

– How is the century characterized through the main character of the novel? Pechorin - a hero of his time?

6. A condensed retelling and discussion of the story “Fatalist”.

– Does the fatal “experiment” that Pechorin undertakes in his duel with Grushnitsky continue in the story “Fatalist”?

Yes, here we can see an even more desperate game of the hero with fate.

What is the genre of these pages? Again - a novella! Why? Unravel the mysterious plot of The Fatalist. Why does Lermontov complete the novel with these pages, having apparently exhausted the secrets of Pechorin’s “I”?

– And yet: is this rebellious note the secret thing in Pechorin? Let us remember him at the most alarming moment of his life - the morning before the duel. It could have been his last morning. Let us remember Lermontov’s lines, close to these pages of the novel, sounding like poetry: “I don’t remember a morning more blue and fresh!..”